9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r consideration and disposal. 2. The appellants are M/s. Vira Shoes (Shri Imran Virji) and M/s. Footnook (Shri Amin Virji). The charge against the appellant is that the appellants received footwear from karigars in loose form in jute bags, plastic bags, basket, etc. Thereafter, they affixed a sticker showing information as Item No., brand name 'REGAL' and MRP. Thereafter, a pair of footwear is put in plastic bags having 'REGAL' monogram and 'REGAL' brand named printed on it. Thereafter, the shoes are packed in cardboard boxes having 'REGAL' brand name printed on it and on the card board boxes also, stickers are affixed which indicate item No., colour, bar code, size and MRP. The appellants also claimed that they were receiving footwear fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all. However, in respect of shoes received in cardboard boxes, which would be about 10 to 15% of the transactions, where they have affixed only a sticker on the shoes indicating the bar code number and the size of the shoes, and the brand name at the bottom of the sole, they are disputing the tax liability. It is their contention that this activity of labeling undertaken on the already packed shoes does not amount to manufacture. He relies on the decision of this Tribunal in a similar case in the case of Rafique Malik vide order No. A/1331/WZB/2005 CIII dated 29/06/2005 wherein this Tribunal held that in cases where shoes were received in unit containers and where bar code and MRP are only affixed on the shoes, the same would not attract d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffixing of labels containing bar code, MRP and logo is undertaken. He further points out that this plea was taken by the appellant before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay wherein they challenged levy on this activity and both Shri Imran Virji and Shri Amin Virji had admitted in the statements recorded under Section 14 that they had admitted in the statements recorded under Section 14 that they had given incorrect particulars in the writ petition and they have no proof showing that they had received the gods already pre-packed. He further submits that they have taken the goods already pre-packed. He further submits that they have taken the same plea before the adjudicating authority during the personal hearing held on 05/05/2004 who gave an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, MRP and logo of the appellant on the bottom of the sole. However, in the statements recorded under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, the appellants have clearly admitted that they have no evidence in respect of this claim. Further, it is also an admitted fact that opportunity was given to them by the adjudicating authority to lead evidence about the receipt of shoes in pre-packed form; however, the appellants were not able to lead any evidence in spite of sufficient time being granted and the appellants admitted that they have no evidence in this regard. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that they had received about 10% to 15% of the shoes in pre-packed form from the karigars is only a mere claim without any supporting evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
